Print

Sestak's job offer

Written by Reg Henry on .

     Here’s is the story of the hour. Class, pay attention. There is to be a test on this material later ....
     WASHINGTON (AP) — Forced to disclose backstage political bargaining, President Barack Obama’s embarrassed White House acknowledged on Friday that it enlisted Bill Clinton to try to ease Rep. Joe Sestak out of Pennsylvania’s Senate primary with a job offer.
      The admission left many questions unanswered, however, and Republicans weren’t ready to let the issue rest. For Obama, the revelations called into question his repeated promises to run an open government that was above back room deals.
      Seeking to quiet the clamor over a possible political trade, the White House released a report describing the offer that was intended to clear a path for Sen. Arlen Specter to win the Democratic nomination.
      Presidential Counsel Robert Bauer rendered his own verdict in a two-page report that said there was no improper conduct. No one in the administration discussed the offer with Sestak, Bauer said. The report did not say what, if any, contacts or promises the White House had with Specter on the matter. It also did not reveal whether Obama was aware of the former president’s role.
      The report didn’t impress Republicans.
       “This memo frankly raises more questions: What was Bill Clinton authorized to offer? Did President Obama sign off on this conversation before it took place?” Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said.
        “Now more than ever it is clear that this White House is not capable of policing itself and needs to open itself to an independent investigation.”
          Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House oversight committee who unsuccessfully had sought a Department of Justice investigation, said Obama had become a part of the Washington culture he decried.
         “Regardless of what President Clinton or Congressman Sestak now say, it is abundantly clear that this kind of conduct is contrary to President Obama’s pledge to change ‘business as usual’ and that his administration has engaged in the kind of political shenanigans he once campaigned to end,” Issa said.
          Sestak, who had said a job was offered but had provided no details, acknowledged Friday that he had had the conversation with Clinton. He said the former president told him he should stay in the U.S. House and perhaps join a presidential board.
          In a statement released by his campaign, Sestak said, “I said no. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer.”
Specter declined to comment.
        The report said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel enlisted Clinton’s help as a go-between with Sestak. Clinton agreed to raise the offer of a seat on a presidential advisory board or another executive board if Sestak dropped his bid, “which would avoid a divisive Senate primary,” the report said.
       Under the proposed arrangement, Sestak would have been able to remain in the House while serving on a board. It was not clear why the White House — which has the power to offer Cabinet posts and sought-after embassy jobs — believed Sestak would be interested in just an advisory position.
      Sestak defeated the five-term Specter, who had switched from Republican to Democrat last year at the White House’s urging, in the May 18 Democratic primary.
Emanuel and Sestak both worked in the White House when Clinton was president in the 1990s, and both remain close with their former boss. Sestak was a supporter of Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her 2008 presidential bid. ....


       My question, class, is multiple choice.
       Should we be ...
       a) horrified and appalled
       b) seriously concerned
       c) concerned
       d) not very concerned
        e) yawning.

         For my own part, I think answer a) is probably the strictly correct reaction (because I suspect that Sestak was probably offered more than a board position and Obama, a details man, probably knew something about it.)
        On the other hand, with all our other problems, this seems to me like the very least of things to become agitated about. In all candor, this view could reflect my pro-Obama inclinations at work but the fact that Republicans are hot for this reflects their anti-Obama inclinations.
       What happened may be against the law but the revelation that political acts occur in politics doesn’t terribly excite me. So my head is with answer a) but my heart and my instincts are with answer d).
       What say you?
        Have a great Memorial Day weekend. See you Tuesday.

Join the conversation:

To report inappropriate comments, abuse and/or repeat offenders, please send an email to socialmedia@post-gazette.com and include a link to the article and a copy of the comment. Your report will be reviewed in a timely manner. Thank you.